One message given is a sense of approval of this particular developer, and of this particular style of housing, by planners. Another is that the developer has an inside track with planners that actual residents do not enjoy. Accurate or not, those are impressions given by the online platforms.
This isn't the first "rush to judgement" in official public dialogue on the Westbard plan. The evening of a meeting held this spring by EYA development partner Equity One, a County Council staff member tweeted a favorable response to the announcement of the partnership:
Cindy Gibson, District 1 Councilmember Roger Berliner's chief of staff, wrote: "EYA will be partnering with Equity One on the Westbard Plan in Bethesda. Seems like a good choice for this project."
I don't believe that those tasked with representing the interests of residents - the Council has final say on both the sector plan, and any specific development projects - should be passing judgment, or expressing opinions, on what is a good or bad choice at this stage. In my opinion, EYA does a great job of matching townhome designs to their environment, and in not providing the same cookie-cutter results on every project. But the citizens had not, and still haven't - as of today - concluded that high-density multi-family housing developments are the right fit for the Westbard area. That is yet to be determined in the planning process.
High-density development is probably not going to be "a good choice" for a neighborhood whose elementary school is maxed out with students. Even after the new addition to Wood Acres ES next year, the school will still be slightly over capacity, and the building cannot be expanded any further on the site. High-density doesn't fit for an area not in walking distance to Metro, with limited bus service to boot. Then there is the traffic situation on River Road and Massachusetts Avenue, which are already overwhelmed by the existing population. Beyond that, the overwhelming character of the area is that of single-family, residential suburban neighborhoods. Westbard is not an urban area; it is a commercial/industrial center that serves the residential neighborhoods around it.
The messages sent by government officials should be emphasizing inclusion and fairness, and - barring some future decision by citizens - not bending the representative character of a neighborhood to fit a particular message, or designate a predetermined goal. First we have to set the goals.
12 comments:
What kind of car does Dyer drive?
He drives a 30-year old Subaru with the following bumper stickers: "Coexist", "You Can't Hug A Child With Nuclear Arms", "Chop Wood Not Atoms" and "I Got Lucky At McDonald's Raw Bar".
Meh, pretty weak arguments. None of the pictures on the website have anything to do with the current Westbard - there's no bikeshare or cherry blossoms or high-end townhomes. It's clear they're just idyllic pics of what Westbard could strive for. It's not some conspiracy to show subliminal support for EYA (or Capital Bikeshare, for that matter - surprised you didn't include that company in the conspiracy).
Staffers are people, too; they're allowed to have personal opinions.
Of course the area currently has poor bus service; if there was density added then obviously better bus service could be added. Pretending like that's a static variable doesn't make sense.
Reinvestment in the Westbard area can not come soon enough. It's shocking how cruddy the area is, considering the location. When a McD's and dozens of acres of storage facilities are the highlights of your neighborhood then it's safe to say redevelopment is a good idea. It'll be interesting to see what that redevelopment ends up looking like.
Wait, are the townhomes already built at this point or are they still just planned? Either way, they're the most accurate picture on the website, compared to the cherry blossoms, bikeshare, etc.
There is a bikeshare station on river road.
Not sure I'd call the area "cruddy".
No one is saying residents don't want improvements.
There's lots of places with old one level shopping centers that keeping going such as in the Palisades and in Potomac.
Will bus service be improved? Who knows, this is Ride-On we're talking about. The apartments on Westbard had to provide their own metro shuttle since Ride-On is so bad and infrequent. Remember, we're not getting BRT at Westbard and good old Ride-On isn't exactly a priority for MoCo.
Kenwood Place Condominiums weren't sexy enough to go on the cover of the brochure?
7:29 So why do they show promotional materials for EYA townhomes? It's not even a real picture! The pictures show what the people who chose them wanted to express to the public, and shape public opinion.
Staff for councilmembers absolutely should not be expressing favorable opinions about a particular development firm at this stage.
Not being within walking distance of Metro is a static variable. Given the bus ridership numbers for Westbard area residents now, more rich people jammed into the area will increase auto traffic, not transit use.
McDonald's is great, and the only fast food restaurant in Bethesda. Elitist people may find fast food a negative, but the popularity of McDonald's on River Road proves local residents find it a positive addition to the community.
The self storage embarrassment is entirely the responsibility of the County Council and planners since 1982. So they don't get rewarded now for failure by being able to ram through anything they want for a developer. Stockholm syndrome is not a planning tool.
Redevelopment is only a "good idea" when it adds amenities and restaurants that "leaders" have failed to facilitate for decades in the area.
7:42 The townhome image was taken from promotional materials for EYA's Little Falls Place development on the Hoyt property off Butler Road, which is currently under construction. They are not representative of the area, which is dominated by single-family homes. The cherry blossoms & Capital Bikeshare actually exist. And then there's the ethical question of using a developer's promo materials when you are the government officials who will have authority over their Westbard projects. Right now, I'm having trouble finding much that is "accurate" on the Plan Westbard website.
I do not understand. What area does the Westbard Sector Plan include? Is Whole Foods, Washington Episcopal School, and Butler Road included? If this is the case, then why isn't there a hault on all development in the entire area until the plan is in place? It makes no sense to let ANY project happen, when so many businesses depend upon each other. For example, I drove down Little Falls Parkway tonight and saw about 50 cars parked along the side (for what I guess was back to school night at Westland). The whole area is very fragile, and many businesses need to provide their employees, staff, consumers, guests, etc. a great deal of parking and nobody should be able to build within the Westbard Sector until a plan is in place. Parking and traffic is a huge issue, and I believe the Hoyt property should not have been developed, as well. (Until a plan is in place). It should also be noted that people continue to park their cars along Little Falls, or River Road (across from McDonalds) to enjoy the crescent trail. A public garage is needed along River Road, and needs to be considered in the plan. Also, any available land (for example, the strip of land located on the west side of the crescent trail) be paved and include meters for parking.
7:08 PM The Westbard Sector roughly includes all of the commercial and industrial properties on River Road, and Westbard Avenue. Plus the nursing home on Ridgefield, the multifamily housing on River and Westbard/Westbard Circle, and is bordered by Little Falls Parkway and Massachusetts Avenue.
So, yes, the Episcopal school is part of it, as are Whole Foods and Butler Road.
Wait til somebody hosts a party in Little Falls Place on the old Hoyt property. You'll see plenty of cars out on Little Falls Parkway. That Hoyt decision was a disaster in so many ways, and proved the primacy of developer dollars in land use decisions in Montgomery County, as well as the total environmental hypocrisy of our "green, sustainable, Ten Mile Creek preserving" elected officials.
Certainly, any new development is going to have to provide ample parking, and you better believe the developers will try to get out of it (as EYA did on the Hoyt site). As you mention, already people illegally are parking to use the trail, to as visitors/residents of the various apartment/condo buildings. That will only get worse with redevelopment that does not provide a 1:1 parking to resident/patron ratio.
1:1? Where do guests park? What happens when people have dinner parties? With every development that happens within the Westbard Sector (or Bethesda), we continue to see parking problems, and I really hope that the new leadership in Parks and Planning does not allow any new development (including a rest area / park along the crescent trail) without providing the community ample parking.
2:26 - When I say 1:1 ratio, I mean per person, not per housing unit. You would have to have spaces to cover every potential driver per unit, and overflow for guests. There will have to be ample parking for shoppers and patrons of retail and restaurants. Preferably surface parking, as this is not an urban area. Westbard planning won't be able to shortchange on parking, as so few people travel there by bus, and it is not in walking distance to Metro.
Post a Comment